270 Roberts
this did not prevent them from adducing as much scientifi c evidence as
they could for the “new scheme of historical geology” that served as the
basis for the young- earth creationist movement.^36RECENT DIALOGUE
The scientifi cally infl ammatory rhetoric of young- earth creationists and
other religionists skeptical of the claims of modern science has played
an important role in generating increased interest in the relationship be-
tween science and religion during the past few decades. Since 1970, reli-
gious conservatives—from fundamentalists and Pentecostals to Missouri
Lutherans and Seventh- day Adventists—have aggressively contested the
notion that the vocabulary of modern science, standing alone, provides
an adequate description of the natural world. For those Christians, radi-
cally demarcating science from religion holds little appeal.
Many late- twentieth- century creationists continued to equate “sci-
ence” with the idea of systematic knowledge based on generalization from
observed facts. This led two of them in the middle of the 1980s to assail the
theory of evolution by suggesting that it could “be beaten to a pulp with
the dictionary.” Other creationists, however, have appealed to a somewhat
broader conception of science as a set of disciplines that arrange their
data within theoretical structures, or “models.” They have insisted that
using that conception, creationism is just as scientifi c as evolutionism. In
defending that view, “scientifi c” creationists have appealed to the work of
philosophers of science such as Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn to suggest
that creationism constitutes a “research program” no less rigorously “sci-
entifi c” than Darwinism. Since the middle of the 1970s, this way of fram-
ing the issue has prompted many creationists to demand “equal time” for
their views in public education.^37
In 1982 the federal judge William R. Overton ruled against an Arkansas
law mandating “balanced treatment for creation- science and evolution-
science” in the public schools on the grounds that “creation science is not
science.” Overton’s justifi cation for this view was that creation science
“is not explanatory by reference to natural law, is not testable, and is not
falsifi able” and is “inspired by the Book of Genesis.” Notwithstanding that
ruling, which even some opponents of creationism have acknowledged
was “reached for all the wrong reasons and by a chain of argument which
is hopelessly suspect,” advocates of creationism have continued to defend
the scientifi c pedigree of their views. However, most also assume that, as
one creationist has recently put it, “the Bible is an essential part of the